Why is public sector pay such a big issue now?

irish_bob

dresden8 wrote: »

Well the average public sector benchmarking award was around 10% and the average public sector envy levy was 7.5%, so not much to go until benchmarking is totally unwound. 2.5% or so.

That's more than taken up by the pay freeze that the public sector had to take that the private sector didn't.

And no, not all the private sector took a pay freeze or pay cut and no, they've not all been made unemployed.

the tiny minority of private sector workers who have not taken a pay cut are not paid by the states finances but then again , you knew that already

newname

Quote:Irish bob
Originally Posted by newname
Its not actually quite as simple as that - the government has a responsibility to protect and maintain a reasonable level of tax intake over a given length of time. They failed miserably over the last decade at that. They relied on unsustainable taxes - mismanagement on a grand scale.

They can't just come running back to the country every few years saying 'Oops we've run out of money again - we're gonna have to raise taxes again

Most people will help out this time but the government really need to shoulder more responsibility for their actions - if you seen bertie aherns interview recently you will see they have not.


fixed that for ya

Irish bob, you've changed my quote - your name should be at the top of it now??????????????

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

the tiny minority of private sector workers who have not taken a pay

Stats? Link?

Or do you know a bloke?

irish_bob

dresden8 wrote: »

Stats? Link?

Or do you know a bloke?

no bloke , just a jack russell and three labradors i spoke to on the street

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

no bloke , just a jack russell and three labradors i spoke to on the street

Thought not.

irish_bob

dresden8 wrote: »

Thought not.

the dogs in the street know the present level of expenditure on the public sector is unsustainable

unfortunatley the majority if people in this country will say anything to defend thier salarys and will refuse to accept reality when thier pay packets are under threat

gurramok

dresden8 wrote: »

Well the average public sector benchmarking award was around 10% and the average public sector envy levy was 7.5%, so not much to go until benchmarking is totally unwound. 2.5% or so.

Tax relief on the pension levy cus that 7.5% decrease to about half that.

irish_bob wrote: »

the dogs in the street know the present level of expenditure on the public sector is unsustainable

unfortunatley the majority if people in this country will say anything to defend thier salarys and will refuse to accept reality when thier pay packets are under threat

Sure, look at the recent stats for the overpaid teachers, best paid teachers in Europe by a long mile. http://www.herald.ie/national-news/irish-teachers-best-paid-for-working-fewer-hours-1840665.html

Irish teachers best paid for working fewer hours

IRISH teachers are among the best paid in Europe despite working fewer hours than their international counterparts.

A new document, the Eurydice Key Data on Education 2009 report, compares the salaries of teachers working in 31 countries.

However, there is no data for Ireland as the Department of Education failed to provide figures for the research.

But a comparison can be made based on the same calculations used in the report.

In the school year 2006/07, the basic salary for teachers in this country was €30,000 to €60,000. This worked out at about 90pc to 179pc of national average income per person, the measure used by Eurydice researchers.

The figure can be compared to countries which provided data, including the Netherlands (92pc to 191pc), Britain (109pc to 186pc), France (75pc to 187pc), Denmark (87pc to 119pc) and Italy (66pc to 113pc).

Second-level teachers in Ireland are contracted for 735 hours of class time per year, or 22 hours per week.

A primary school teacher has a working week of not less than 28 hours and 20 minutes, putting their annual hours at 1,037.

The overall number of working hours for teachers in the Netherlands is 1,659 per year, while in Britain it is 1,265 hours per year, according to the Eurydice report.

In the majority of the 31 countries surveyed, teachers must make themselves available to the school for up to 30 hours per week.

Calling for greater productivity, the Bord Snip report on the cost of the public service highlighted the "very short working day and working week" of Irish teachers.

I'd like a serious reply to this instead of saying..'sure its the frickin rag of a tabloid herald spouting crap again'

Before you dish it, see here on who Eurydice are http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.php

And enjoy the read: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/105EN.pdf

cyclopath2001

irish_bob wrote: »

the dogs in the street know the present level of expenditure on the public sector is unsustainable

The present level of spending is unsustainable. There is a difference.

strangeloop

irish_bob wrote: »

unfortunatley the majority if people in this country will say anything to defend thier salarys and will refuse to accept reality when thier pay packets are under threat

Is this not understandable? Would you willingly agree to a wage reduction? They have already accepted paycuts through a pension levy and a proposed reduction in the workforce. Is everyone else stepping up to the plate? I definitely think not.

On a slightly different note, the recession we are experiencing at the moment is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the recession of the 80s and early 90s. The last time around, myself and many others from the working class city areas had to get the boat. I certainly didn't begrudge the very few from my leaving cert year to get into the civil service. The attitude from my classmates was a bit of jealousy(they didn't have to leave their family) but also fair play to them.

People need to start copping on and to start taking responsibility for their own careers. Why waste time and effort ranting and envying what your neighbour is getting? It's pointless, there is a big world out there full of work and opportunities.

dresden8

gurramok wrote: »

Tax relief on the pension levy cus that 7.5% decrease to about half that.

Taxation on Benchmarking cuts that benchmarking down to about half as well. What goes around comes around.

Does that make the distance to go really 1.25%?

NewDubliner

gurramok wrote: »

Tax relief on the pension levy cus that 7.5% decrease to about half that.

Very disingenuous. Didn't those private sector workers who had pay cuts also get 'tax relief' on their pay cuts? If the 'levy' were a pension contribution, it would be possible to take this pension entitlement to other jobs.

As it stands the proceeds of the levy are used to fill a hole in the pension fund shared by both private and public sector workers, created when it was raided to bail out the banks and keep the directors & executives salaries there at a level well beyond the dreams of the most well paid public servant. Not only that, but this 'recapitalisation' money is a bribe to avoid the banks foreclosing on property developers and seizing their sumptuous houses and holiday homes.

Why would you want ordinary workers wages reduced to pay for the lifestyles of bankers and builders?

irish_bob

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The present level of spending is unsustainable. There is a difference.

a strong principal of mine is not to engage in semantics , something i know public sector workers love to do

irish_bob

strangeloop wrote: »

Is this not understandable? Would you willingly agree to a wage reduction? They have already accepted paycuts through a pension levy and a proposed reduction in the workforce. Is everyone else stepping up to the plate? I definitely think not.

On a slightly different note, the recession we are experiencing at the moment is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the recession of the 80s and early 90s. The last time around, myself and many others from the working class city areas had to get the boat. I certainly didn't begrudge the very few from my leaving cert year to get into the civil service. The attitude from my classmates was a bit of jealousy(they didn't have to leave their family) but also fair play to them.

People need to start copping on and to start taking responsibility for their own careers. Why waste time and effort ranting and envying what your neighbour is getting? It's pointless, there is a big world out there full of work and opportunities.

this rescession ( FOR MOST PEOPLE ) is and will be much worse than the ones in the 80,s , your statement about envy of the civil service combined with your advice to take personal responsibility is hillariously ironic

as for the pension levy , thats not a pay cut , a pay cut is money you say bye bye to forever , the PS will see that money again when they reach retirement , the only changes are that they are making a larger ( though still redicolously small ) contribution to thier pensions

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

the PS will see that money again when they reach retirement ,

Nope, "invested" in the banks, houses and land worth fnck all in the arsehole of the country.

That's where that money's gone. Gone being the operative word.

And less money is a paycut, no matter what type of semantics you put up around it.

Not that you engage in semantics, after all.

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

the tiny minority of private sector workers who have not taken a pay cut are not paid by the states finances but then again , you knew that already

ISME's own survey last week suggested 49% of their firms had implemented a pay cut, the average of which was 13%

25% see some redundancies within next 3 months

dresden8

So, in public sector bashing la-la-land, 51% is a "tiny minority".

Glad that's cleared up.

NewDubliner

Riskymove wrote: »

ISME's own survey last week suggested 49% of their firms had implemented a pay cut, the average of which was 13%

And that's only ISME workers, not directly comparable with PS. What about IBEC members, what percentage of their private sector workers had pay cuts?

ixoy

NewDubliner wrote: »

And that's only ISME workers, not directly comparable with PS. What about IBEC members, what percentage of their private sector workers had pay cuts?

With all respect, why should private sector workers - where their employer can afford them - have to take a pay cut? Should they do one just because others have or because the government needs to balance its budget and reduce the public/civil sector pay bill as part of that (in the form of a levy or a pay cut depending on the mood of the poster).
Also we'd need to see other data for those organisations where there have been no pay cuts, if there have been job losses instead as that's the method been used by those in my friend's companies.

NewDubliner

ixoy wrote: »

With all respect, why should private sector workers - where their employer can afford them - have to take a pay cut?

Nobody has said that they should. Although, if they did, it would help the country become more competititve.

dresden8

ixoy wrote: »

With all respect, why should private sector workers - where their employer can afford them - have to take a pay cut?

Indeed, nobody said they should. These stats were quoted in answer to Irish_bob's assertion that only a tiny minority hadn't taken a pay-cut.

Which is pure bull-plop.

Bull-plop I tells ya!

100% of the public sector has taken a pay cut by the way.

And the public sector is one of those areas using job-losses as a means to contain the wage bill as well.

jahalpin

As many other posters have said the wages of the civil servants by paid from taxes raised in the private sector.

If the amount that is brought into the economy from tax goes down then the amount available to pay for civil servants and all the other services that the state has to provide goes down. Therefore cuts must be made to balance the books.

The civil service is very expensive and the state can no longer afford to pay for such a bloated and inflexible workforce, therefore, high levels of job cuts etc are required. The amount it costs to fund the pension alone is unbelievable (the amount that the staff pay towards this only covers a tiny fraction of the true cost).

Before anyone mentions the banks again, the reason that the state bailed out the banks is that if any of them had actually gone bankrupt the effect on the economy would be catosphropic.

As for the cost of the government ex. civil servants the cost of the TD's, Seanad and President seems fairly reasonable considering the average wage of a civil servant.

The "poorly paid" clerical grades aren't really that badly paid as is a low-skill job and is well above minimum wage (if they want more money, they could always improve themselves by doing a night course etc.)

ixoy

dresden8 wrote: »

Indeed, nobody said they should. These stats were quoted in answer to Irish_bob's assertion that only a tiny minority hadn't taken a pay-cut.

Which is pure bull-plop.

More interesting would be stats to say how many haven't reduced their wage bill - either through redundancies, wage cuts, or both. Just because a firm hasn't reduced people's wage, doesn't mean they haven't reduced people themselves.

100% of the public sector has taken a pay cut by the way.

Not the retired ones I'd also wonder what percentage have had a pay increase by way of annual increments, something we hear less about (as well as the reduction in the amount paid into pensions following the supplementary budget).

dresden8

ixoy wrote: »

Not the retired ones I'd also wonder what percentage have had a pay increase by way of annual increments, something we hear less about (as well as the reduction in the amount paid into pensions following the supplementary budget).

Increments are nowhere near the value of the levy, if you're still getting increments that is.

dresden8

http://www.ibec.ie/ibec/press/presspublicationsdoclib3.nsf/wvPolicyNews/2FDAB4793CDA0E9F802575ED00528447?OpenDocument

The survey found that 27% of businesses had implemented pay cuts for management staff; 18% for other salaried staff and 10% for production workers.

That's another "tiny minority" who haven't implemented pay-cuts so.

ixoy

dresden8 wrote: »

Increments are nowhere near the value of the levy, if you're still getting increments that is.

Has anyone stopped increments?

I know an increment could push you into the next levy band and thus immediately offset it, but I'd be curious to see how much off someone is from when the levy was first announced to now assuming they got an increment and with the reduction in pension contributions from April. Probably too difficult to calculate unless you get a specific case (e.g. EO Year 2) but curious all the same.

irish_bob

dresden8 wrote: »

Indeed, nobody said they should. These stats were quoted in answer to Irish_bob's assertion that only a tiny minority hadn't taken a pay-cut.

Which is pure bull-plop.

Bull-plop I tells ya!

100% of the public sector has taken a pay cut by the way.

And the public sector is one of those areas using job-losses as a means to contain the wage bill as well.

pension levy isnt a pay cut no matter how much you or the union beardos like to spin it , a pay cut is money you say bye bye to forever , not money you get to see again when you retire in whatever number of years , your the highest paid public sector in europe , id keep the head down if i was you

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

pension levy isnt a pay cut no matter how much you or the union beardos like to spin it , a pay cut is money you say bye bye to forever , not money you get to see again when you retire in whatever number of years , your the highest paid public sector in europe , id keep the head down if i was you

Been there, done that bob. Your statements have been shown to be rubbish and untrue. I'd keep the head down if I was you.

dresden8

ixoy wrote: »

Has anyone stopped increments?

I know an increment could push you into the next levy band and thus immediately offset it, but I'd be curious to see how much off someone is from when the levy was first announced to now assuming they got an increment and with the reduction in pension contributions from April. Probably too difficult to calculate unless you get a specific case (e.g. EO Year 2) but curious all the same.

Well I'm on the max of my scale not getting increments so it's all losses for me.

Increments work out at about 1-2% so work out at 0.5% to 1% after tax, a lot less than the average levy of 7.5%.

strangeloop

irish_bob wrote: »

this rescession ( FOR MOST PEOPLE ) is and will be much worse than the ones in the 80,s , your statement about envy of the civil service combined with your advice to take personal responsibility is hillariously ironic

The following youtube clip is just a tiny taste of the last recession
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OcSNvbON_Y
I find it hilarious that you think what we're going through at the moment is worse than the 80s. What were you working at in the last recession or did you get the boat? I got the boat.

irish_bob

strangeloop wrote: »

The following youtube clip is just a tiny taste of the last recession
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OcSNvbON_Y
I find it hilarious that you think what we're going through at the moment is worse than the 80s. What were you working at in the last recession or did you get the boat? I got the boat.

i was a kid in the 80,s , the rescession back then was fairly limited to this country , the uk and the usa were booming in the mid 80,s , thier is nowhere for irish people to go now and besides , unlike the 80,s , the level of personal debt hanging over thier heads is enormous

like our toaiseach , you seem to be in denial of our current circumstances if you think its not as bad as the last rescession , give it time and you will think differently